Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1321 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

Questions were put specifically to the bureaucrats, and Ms Webb spoke at length about the known contamination at the Kingston site - the entire site. She referred to the fact that it had been used for a long time and the quantum range of contamination was known. Mr Kaine then asked whether the Commonwealth would pick up the cost for cleaning. He asked, "Does the Commonwealth have any responsibility for assisting us to pay the cost?". The answer was no. That was on 28 April. On 3 May, in the house, I asked a question and was told quite firmly that the private sector would pick up the tab.

In the letter that Mrs Carnell gave us - it was not a letter yesterday; it was a memo - Mr Townsend refers to negotiations beginning with the Commonwealth on 5 May for the clean-up of the contamination at the AGPS site. Today I asked the Chief Minister to explain whether, when she referred to the negotiations with the Commonwealth, she was in fact talking about the AGPS site. What did I get? I got some gratuitous advice about the self-government Act, but I did not get an answer. We asked for further letters today. Therein lies the nub of what I want to bring to the house's attention. We were told "letters". "Letters" is a gross exaggeration of what we received today. We received one letter referring to a draft agreement, which was not ratified and which talked about the AGPS site and gross contamination on the AGPS site. We were told "letters" - plural. Without wanting to pun unnecessarily, the air is no clearer; the soil is no clearer; the issue is no clearer. The Chief Minister said clearly and categorically that from the very beginning the Commonwealth had been entering negotiations about the cleaning up of the Kingston site.

I have been pursuing evidence of this for a couple of days and will continue to do so tomorrow. I do believe that, if the house is told that they are going to get letters, that means letters - plural. We have been given a new standard for public comment today. We are being told in public comment one story and, when it comes to assessing it against the evidence that has been clearly put before committees and to this house in answers to questions - not only did I ask a question on 3 May 1995 but Ms Tucker did as well - it does not stack up. I think this house ought to be concerned and be forewarned that we will be asking further questions tomorrow.

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (5.05): Mr Speaker, I also want to rise on the question of Mrs Carnell's new - well, not new for her but new for this house - low standard of honesty and forthrightness in relation to keeping the Assembly informed about what is going on. Ms McRae has raised a very serious matter which relates to the chopping and changing by the Chief Minister on exactly what is going on in relation to the Kingston foreshore, what the level of contamination is, what the compensation is what the processes are.

Earlier we had a big debate - we had a fracas - about suspending standing orders to force Mrs Carnell to table papers. We had a similar fracas yesterday. But we have had similar fracas in the past. These fracas occur because of the Government's pathological unwillingness to part with documents that they are only too happy to cite as authority for their statements but are not willing to share with the rest of the Assembly.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .